The trial Magistrate initially granted interim maintenance of Rs. 2,000 per month to the petitioner and Rs. 1,000 per month to the child, recognizing the emotional and financial hardships faced by a single mother. However, the respondent challenged this order, and the Revisional Court set aside the maintenance granted to the woman while retaining the child\u2019s support.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Delivering judgment, Justice Vinod Chatterji Koul of the Jammu Bench dismissed Murti Devi\u2019s plea, making it clear that a rape conviction destroys the presumption of a marital or marital-like bond. The Court observed:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n\u201cAs the respondent was admittedly charged with an offence punishable under Section 376 IPC on the complaint of the petitioner, they cannot be treated as husband and wife for claiming maintenance under Section 125 CrPC.\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\nJustice Koul emphasized that a relationship leading to a rape conviction cannot simultaneously be treated as a husband-wife relationship: \u201cThe conviction and sentence of the respondent make it difficult to hold him liable for the petitioner\u2019s maintenance. Granting maintenance under Sections 488\/125 CrPC in such circumstances is legally erroneous.\u201d <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\u201cWhile the petitioner\u2019s difficulties are acknowledged, the law must protect men from being forced into maintenance claims where criminal convictions exist.\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\nThis judgment draws a bold line between genuine victimhood and opportunistic misuse. It sends a clear message that criminal accusations cannot coexist with spousal claims. A woman cannot first accuse a man of rape and then seek to enjoy the legal and financial benefits of being his wife.<\/p>\n\n\n\n